>> Braude: TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON," FORMER ASSISTANT WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR JILL WINE-BANKS JOINS ME TO BREAK DOWN DAY FIVE OF THE JANUARY 6th HEARINGS, AND TO COMPARE THE CRIMES OF RICHARD NIXON TO THE POSSIBLE CRIMES OF DONALD TRUMP.

AND A LITTLE LATER, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK BACK AT MY CONVERSATION WITH THE AUTHORS OF "AFTER TRUMP: RECONSTRUCTING THE PRESIDENCY," WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO OBAMA AND A TOP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYER UNDER GEORGE W. BUSH, WHO CAME TOGETHER TO PRESCRIBE REFORMS THAT COULD PROTECT FUTURE PRESIDENCIES FROM TRUMP-LIKE ABUSE, AND TO DEBATE WHETHER HE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED.

BUT FIRST, ANOTHER PIECE OF MAJOR NEWS TODAY OUT OF THE SUPREME COURT: ITS FIRST MAJOR GUN DECISION IN MORE THAN A DECADE, WHICH IS AIMED AT NEW YORK, BUT WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY AFFECT US HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS.

THIS MORNING, THE COURT DECLARED THE NEW YORK LAW THAT REQUIRES PEOPLE TO DEMONSTRATE A PARTICULAR NEED FOR CARRYING A GUN IN PUBLIC IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

AND THAT MEANS SIMILAR LAWS IN CALIFORNIA, HAWAII, MARYLAND, NEW JERSEY, RHODE ISLAND AND HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS, WILL LIKELY BE CHALLENGED AS WELL.

THE VOTE WAS 6 TO 3, WITH THE SIX REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED JUSTICES APPARENTLY IGNORING THE WORDS OF LATE CONSERVATIVE ANTONIN SCALIA IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, THAT, LIKE MOST RIGHTS, THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT IS NOT UNLIMITED.

[IT IS] NOT A RIGHT TO KEEP AND CARRY ANY WEAPON WHATSOEVER IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER AND FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE.

AND FOR THE RECORD, A POLITICO/MORNING CONSULT POLL OUT JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO FOUND 59% OF REGISTERED VOTERS SUPPORT STRICTER GUN LAWS.

BUT WHO CARES WHAT THE VOTERS WANT, RIGHT, ROCKET LAUNCHERS NEXT.

AND NOW, TO DAY FIVE, IN WHICH THE SELECT COMMITTEE LAID OUT THE EVIDENCE, IN DETAIL, ABOUT HOW THEN-PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP A PPLIED IN TENSE PRESSAURE ON DOZENS OF PEOPLE, FROM LOW-LEVEL ELECTION OFFICIALS TO THE TOP OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TO HELP HIM STEAL THE 2020 ELECTION.

JUST ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE TODAY'S HEARING BEGAN, WE LEARNED THAT FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS SEARCHED THE HOME OF FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY JEFFREY CLARK.

THAT'S THE MAN TRUMP WAS TRYING TO GET TO REPLACE THEN-ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL JEFFREY ROSEN, AFTER TRUMP HAD APPOINTED ROSEN TO THAT ROLE JUST A COUPLE WEEKS PRIOR.

CLARK IS ALSO THE MAN WHO WAS PUSHING A PLAN FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO LIE TO ELECTION OFFICIALS IN GEORGIA ABOUT HAVING NON-EXISTENT EVIDENCE THAT WOULD FORCE THE STATE TO CHANGE ITS ELECTION RESULTS, A PLAN THAT TRUMP LAWYER ERIC HERSCHMANN SUMMED UP PRETTY WELL, WHEN HE SHARED WITH THE COMMITTEE HOW HE RESPONDED TO ROSEN, AFTER A SLIGHTLY MORE EXPLICIT INSULT: >> A-HOLE.

CONGRATULATIONS, YOU JUST ADMITTED YOUR FIRST STEP OR ACT YOU WOULD TAKE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE COMMITTING A FELONY AND VIOLATING RULE 6E.

YOU'RE CLEARLY THE RIGHT CANDIDATE FOR THIS JOB.

LISTEN, THE BEST I CAN TELL IS, THE ONLY THING YOU KNOW ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ELECTION CHALLENGES IS THAT THEY BOTH START WITH E. AND BASED ON YOUR ANSWER TONIGHT, I'M NOT EVEN SURE, DO YOU KNOW THAT?

I WANT TO TALK TO THAT GUY.

>> Braude: CLARK, BY THE WAY, ALSO PUSHED CONSPIRACY THEORIES LIKE CHINESE SPIES USING THERMOMETERS TO TAMPER WITH U.S. VOTING MACHINES.

BUT BACK TO HIS MAIN, MORONIC PLAN, A PLAN- ALSO PUSHED BY TRUMP, ACCORDING TO FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD DONOGHUE'S TESTIMONY, RECALLING HIS HAND-WRITTEN NOTES RECALLING HOW THE THEN-PRESIDENT TOLD HIM, "JUST SAY THAT THE ELECTION WAS CORRUPT AND LEAVE THE REST TO ME AND THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN."

AND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD, "AN OBLIGATION TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THIS WAS AN ILLEGAL, CORRUPT ELECTION."

BUT IT WASN'T JUST ONCE.

>> BETWEEN DECEMBER 23 AND JANUARY 3, THE PRESIDENT EITHER CALLED ME OR MET WITH ME VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY.

>> Braude: AND IT WASN'T AN ARGUMENT HE WAS JUST MAKING PRIVATELY.

HE MADE IT PUBLICLY, TOO, LIKE WHEN HE CALLED INTO A YOUNG CONSERVATIVE SUMMIT.

>> THE PROBLEM IS WE NEED A PARTY THAT'S GONNA FIGHT, AND WE HAVE SOME GREAT CONGRESSMEN AND CONGRESSWOMEN THAT ARE DOING IT, AND WE HAVE OTHERS, SOME GREAT FIGHTERS, BUT WE WON THIS IN A LANDSLIDE.

THEY KNOW IT AND WE NEED BACKING FROM LIKE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO FINALLY STEP UP.

>> Braude: BUT AS DONOGHUE MADE CLEAR TODAY, EVEN IF THE CLAIMS ABOUT SOMETHING GOING WRONG WITH GEORGIA'S ELECTION PROCESS WERE TRUE, THE D.O.J.

HAD ZERO AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

>> BOTH THE ACTING A.G. AND I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THE PRESIDENT ON THIS OCCASION AND ON SEVERAL OTHER OCCASIONS THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS A VERY IMPORTANT, VERY SPECIFIC, BUT VERY LIMITED ROLE IN THESE ELECTIONS.

STATES RUN THE ELECTIONS.

WE ARE NOT QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE STATES.

WE ARE OBVIOUSLY INTERESTED IN AND HAVE A MISSION THAT RELATES TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN RELATION TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

WE ALSO HAVE RELATED CIVIL RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES SO WE DO HAVE AN IMPORTANT ROLE, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE WAS IF A STATE RAN THE ELECTION IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WAS DEFLECTIVE THAT IS TO THE STATE OR CONGRESS TO CORRECT, IT IS NOT FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO STEP IN.

AND, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD THE PRESIDENT AS A LAYMAN NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DIDN'T HAVE AT LEAST A CIVIL ROLE TO STEP IN AND BRING SUIT ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

WE TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT TOO, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE CLIENT OF THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

THE ONE AND ONLY CLIENT OF THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE STANDING AS WE WERE REPEATEDLY TOLD BY OUR INTERNAL TEAMS.

>> Braude: YET STILL THE PRESIDENT PRESSED ON, PUBLICLY CALLING NOR A SPECIAL COUNSEL INVESTIGATION PUTTING FORTH WILD CONSPIRACY THEORIES HE FOUND ON THE INTERNET, THREATENING TO FIRE WHOEVER WOULDN'T CARRY OUT HIS ORDERS WHICH OF COURSE WAS NOTHING NEW, BUT WHICH ACTING AG ROSEN DID NOT TAKE LYING DOWN WHEN JEFFREY CLARK BROUGHT IT TO HIM, ALONG WELL IDEA THAT ROSEN MIGHT CONTINUE TO WORK UNDER CLARK.

>> HE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN LIGHT OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING TO AT LEAST OFFER ME THAT I COULD STAY ON AS HIS DEPUTY.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS PREPOS TRUS.

I TOLD HIM THAT WAS NONSENSE KAL AND THAT THERE IS NO UNIVERSE WHERE I WAS GOING TO DO THAT.

YOU STAY ON AND SUPPORT SOMEONE ELSE DOING THINGS THAT WERE NOT CONSIST ENTS WITH WHAT I THOUGHT SHOULD BE DONE.

SO I DIDN'T ACCEPT THAT OFFER, LET ME PUT IT THAT WAY.

>> THE PRESIDENT SAID WHAT DO I HAVE TO LOSE.

AND IT WAS ACTUALLY A GOOD OPENING BECAUSE I SAID MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE A GREAT DEAL TO LOSE.

AT SOME POINT THE CONVERSATION TURNED TO WHETHER JEFF CLARK WAS EVEN QUALIFIED, COMPETENT TO RUN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WHICH IN MY MIND HE CLEARLY WAS NOT.

AND IT WAS A HEATED CONVERSATION.

I THOUGHT IT WAS USEFUL TO POINT OUT TO THE PRESIDENT THAT JEFF CLARK SIMPLY DIDN'T HAVE THE SKILLS, THE ABILITY AND THE EXPERIENCE TO RUN THE DEPARTMENT.

AND SO I SAID MR. PRESIDENT, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A MAN IN THAT SEAT, WHO HAS NEVER TRIED A CRIMINAL CASE.

WHO HAS NEVER CONDUCTED A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

HE'S TELLING YOU THAT HE IS GOING TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE DEPARTMENT, 116,000 EMPLOYEES INCLUDING THE ENTIRE FBI AND TURN THE PLACE ON A DIME AND CONDUCT NATIONWIDE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT WILL PRODUCE RESULTS IN A MATTER OF DAYS, WHICH SIM POSSIBLE, ST ABSURD, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND IT'S GOING TO FAIL.

HE IS NEVER BEEN IN FRONT OF A TRIAL JURY, A GRAND JURY, HE'S NEVER EVEN BEEN TO CHRIS RAE'S OFFICE.

I SAID AT ONE POINT IF YOU WALK INTO CHRIS' OFFICE, ONE WOULD YOU KNOW HOW TO GET THERE, TWO IF YOU GOT THERE WOULD HE KNOW WHO YOU ARE.

DO YOU THINK THE FBI IS GOING TO SUDDENLY START FOLLOWING YOUR ORDERINGS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

HE'S NOT COMPETENT.

>> Braude: AND EVERY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT ROSEN SPOKE WITH ALSO AGREED TO RESIGN WITHOUT HESITATION.

IF CLARK TOOK OVER ACCORDING TO ROSEN'S TESTIMONY AS WELL, WHICH MAY WELL BE THE ONLY REASON TRUMP DIDN'T ULTIMATELY GO THROUGH WITH THE PLAN.

I'M JOINED BY JILL WINE-BANKS, A FORMER ASSISTANT WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, WHO TRIED PRESIDENT NIXON'S ATTORNEY GENERAL, CHIEF OF STAFF AND CHIEF DOMESTIC ADVISOR FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

SHE'S SINCE HELD SEVERAL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LEGAL ROLES, INCLUDING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS, AND IS NOW A MEMOIR: "THE WATERGATE GIRL: MY FIGHT FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE AGAINST A CRIMINAL PRESIDENT."

JILL, PLEASURE TO MEET YOU.

>> THANK YOU, IT IS NICE TO MEETS YOU, I'M GLAD TO MEET YOU.

>> GREAT ADMIRER OF YOUR WORK EVEN THOUGH YOU DO TWEET YOUR WORDLE OUTCOMES WHICH DRIVES ME NUTS.

HAVING SAID THAT, ST GREAT TO YOU HAVE HERE.

ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO SUB VERT DEMOCRACY WHAT WAS YOUR MAJOR TAKE AWAY FROM DAY FIVE?

>> ST A MAJOR HEART OF THE OVERALL-- TO UNDERMINE OUR ELECTIONS, TO UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE POWERFUL TESTIMONY THAT WE GOT TODAY WAS REALLY A GOOD WAY TO STOP THE NEXT HEARINGS WON'T BE UNTIL NEXT MONTH.

AND YOU ALWAYS WANT TO END A TRIAL ON A HIGH NOTE.

AND THAT WAS REALLY POWERFUL.

YOU HAD THREE LIFE-LONG REPUBLICANS WHO SAID I WILL NOT DO CORRUPT THINGS FOR THE PRESIDENT.

THAT I AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORK FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA.

I AM NOT THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER.

I'M THE LAWYER FOR THE PEOPLE.

I REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND THEY DID THE RIGHT THING AT THE TIME, WERE WILLING TO QUIT THEIR JOBS AND THEY TOLD THE PRESIDENT THAT.

AND THEY LAID OUT SOME VERY SPECIFIC REQUESTS FROM THE PRESIDENT BOTH IN TERMS OF FACTS AND IN TERMS OF LAW, AND THEY TOLD HIM THERE IS NO FRAUD INVOLVED IN THIS.

WE HAVE INVESTIGATED.

JUST DOESN'T EXIST.

THEY REBUTTED VERY SPECIFIC ACCUSATIONS THAT HE MADE ABOUT THE ELECTIONS.

IT COULDN'T HAVE GONE FLI BETTER.

IT WAS REALLY POWERFUL.

AND HE WAS QUESTIONING BY ADAM KINSKER, A REPUBLICAN, OF REPUBLICANS SO NO ONE CAN SAY THAT THIS WAS A POLITICAL JOB.

THIS WAS GETTING FACTS OUT AND IF ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP WOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THE MAX.

>> Braude: WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THE POD OF CONGRESS PEOPLE ON THAT LIST WHO SOUGHT PARDONS?

WHAT SHOULD WE TAKE AWAY FROM THAT?

>> WE SHOULD TAKE AWAY THAT THEY ARE GUILTY.

WE SHOULD TAKE AWAY THEY HAVE A GUILTY MIND.

THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DID WAS WRONG.

AND YOU DON'T ASK FOR A PARDON UNLESS YOU THINK YOU'VE COMMITTED A CRIME.

YOU DON'T NEED A PARDON EXCEPT FOR THAT.

AND CAN I REFER BACK TO WATERGATE, RICHARD NIXON IN ACCEPTING THE PARDON WAS TOLD VERY SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE OFFER WAS DELIVERED TO HIM, IF YOU ACCEPT THIS PARDON YOU ARE ADMITTING YOU ARE GUILTY.

AND THERE IS A SUPREME COURT CASE THAT SAYS PRECISELY THAT.

SO THEY KNOW THEY'RE GUILTY.

AND WE NOW KNOW THEY ARE GUILTY.

AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE USUAL LIST OF SUSPECTS WERE NAMED.

GATES AND BROOKS AND BIGGS, GOHMERT AND MAYBE MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE, NOT ON THE PARTICULAR PERSON WHO WAS ANSWERING IT BUT THOUGHT THAT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ASKED BY HER.

>> Braude: SO CAN WE GO FROM THAT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO THE CURRENT ONE AND THE TOPIC OF THE DAY OF EVERY DAY, YOU ARE MERRICK GARLAND, YOU WATCHED THIS TESTIMONY, ENOUGH TO CONVENE A GRAND JURY, ENOUGH TO CONCLUDE THAT A FORMER PRESIDENT HAS COMMITTED PROSECUTABLE CRIMES?

>> THERE HAS BEEN ENOUGH TO CONVENE A GRAND JURY FOR, WELL, EVER SINCE THE MUELLER REPORT.

AND SO HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT.

I HAVE LOST TRACK BUT THAT IS WHAT, TWO YEARS AGO.

THERE IS SEVERAL ENOUGH EVIDENCE NOW.

A GRAND JURY IS ESSENTIAL.

AND I THINK THAT THE EVIDENCE NOW IS SO OVERWHELMING THAT TO LET HIM GO UNACCEPTABLE WOULD BE A GREAT DISSERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY, TO THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE, TO THE RULE OF LAW, TO OUR DEMOCRACY.

PEOPLE WHO GET AWAY WITH THIS KIND OF THING WILL ONLY DO IT AGAIN.

AND IF IT ISN'T DONALD TRUMP WHO IS RE-ELECTED AND DOES THIS AGAIN, SOME OTHER WRONGDOER MIGHT IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE INDICTED RICHARD NIXON, NOT JUST NAMED HIM AN UNINDICTED COCON SPIR TER AND MAYBE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A PRECEDENTS AND A MESSAGE.

MAYBE IT WOULD HAVE STOPPED DONALD TRUMP FROM DOING WHAT HE DID AND WHAT WAS LAID OUT TODAY.

>> Braude: YOU KNOW I'M SORT OF A HALF ASSED FORMER LAWYER, YOU ARE A BIG TIME PROSECUTOR.

WHEN I HEAR THESE ARGUMENTS FROM CEDABLE LEGAL ANALYSTS THAT THERE IS NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT, MASONIC MOMENT ON THE RECORD WHERE DONALD TRUMP SAYS ON THE RECORD I KNOW I LIED, I KNOW THERE IS NO FRAUD.

THAT IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE A CASE LIKE THIS, IS IT AT ALL?

>> IT IS NOT.

FIRST OF ALL, IN MOST CASES, WE RELY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

WE DO HAVE ONE PERSON SAID, HE SAID TO ME CAN YOU BELIEVE I LOST TO BIDEN.

SO THAT MEANS THAT HE ACTUALLY DID KNOW HE LOST.

BUT WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE TELLING HIM HE LOST, THERE IS ALSO AN INSTRUKS JURIES GET THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT WILLFULLY IGNORE AND DISREGARD FACTS, THAT ISN'T HOW IT WORKS.

IF IT IS NOT CONVENIENT TO YOU YOU CAN'T SAY WELL I AM GOING TO IGNORE THAT, BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE THAT OUTCOME.

ANY MORE THAN THE SECRETARY OF STATE CAN SAY I DON'T LIKE HOW PEOPLE VOTED SO I AM GOING TO SELECT A DIFFERENT SLATE OF ELECTORS.

THAT IS WHAT OUR DEMOCRACY REQUIRES.

AND SO I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE MISSING ANYTHING IN THIS CASE IN TERMS OF HIS INTENT.

>> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE THRILLING DAYS OF YESTERYEAR YOU REFERENCED A COUPLE OF TIMES I'M SURE YOU READ THE PIECE WOODWARD AND BERNSTEIN WROTE ON JUNE 5th AM I WANT TO READ YOUR EXCERPTANCE REPORTERS WE STUDIED NIXON AND WRITTEN ABOUT HIM FOR NEARLY HALF A SENTIE DURING WHICH WE THOUGHT NEVER MANY WOULD WE HAVE A PRESIDENT THAT WOULD TRAMPLE AND UNDERMIND DM OCTOBER SEE THROUGH THE PURSUIT OF PERSONAL AND POLITICAL SELF-INTEREST AND THEN ALONG CAME TRUMP.

HAVE I HEARD YOU SAY IN DAYS GONE BY ON MSNBC THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF SIMILARITIES BUT TRUMP WAS A FAR GREATER THREAT TO DEMOCRACY, WHAT DID YOU MEAN?

>> I THINK THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN WATERGATE WAS A THREAT TO OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.

IT WAS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, IT WAS PERJURY, IT WAS PAYING HUSH MONEY.

BUT IT NEVER THREATENED OUR VOTING RIGHTS.

IT NEVER THREATENED DEMOCRACY.

SO I THINK THIS IS FAR WORSE.

I THINK THE BIG DIFFERENCES ARE THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE WHERE WE NOW HAVE SILLOS OF INFORMATION AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVE SOME OF THE GARBAGE THAT THEY'RE BEING FED BY THE BIG LIE.

I THINK THAT WE ALSO HAVE POLITICAL SILOS.

WE USED TO HAVE BY PART SAN SUPPORT, IT WAS REPUBLICANS WHO WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND SAID YOU HAVE TO RESIGN OR YOU WILL BE CONVICTED AT A TRIAL ON THESE CHARGES OF IMPEACHMENT.

SO I THINK THIS IS MORE SERIOUS AS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY THAN ANYTHING WE ENKOIRNTSED DURING WATERGATE.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN WATERGATE WASN'T TERRIBLE, IT WAS.

BUT I AGAIN I THINK THAT WE NEEDED TO SET A PRESS DENT AND SENT A MESSAGE BY INDICTING RICHARD NIXON.

>> Braude: CAN WE RETURN FOR THE FINAL MINUTE TO A VARIATION OF WHAT YOU SAID A MINUTE AGO, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT, I THINK PRETTY CONVINCINGLY, MAYBE IF RICHARD NIXON HAD BEEN INDICTED DONALD TRUMP WOULD HAVE THOUGHT TWICE BEFORE DOING WHAT HE DID.

WHAT DO YOU SAY TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CONVENTIONED THAT IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT DONALD TRUMP SUBMITTED CRIMES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BUT BELIEVE IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST TO EVER PROSECUTE A PRESIDENT OR FORMER PRESIDENT, QUICKLY, WHAT DO YOU SAY TO THEM?

>> I SAY THEY'RE WRONG.

I THINK THAT THE NATIONAL INTERESTS DOES REQUIRE HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE SO THAT WE DON'T SEE THIS A THIRD TIME.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANOTHER PRESIDENT DO THINGS THAT ARE IMPEACHABLE OR CRIMINAL.

AND UNLESS WE HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

I THINK WE HAVE TO DO IT.

AND WE ONLY DO IT WHEN THERE IS MORE THAN AMPLE EVIDENCE TO CONVICT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

NOT ON PHONEY BALONEY EVIDENCE, THINGS LIKE-- WELL, LIKE BENGHAZI.

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THERE.

HERE THIS REAL LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE, AND I THINK EVEN TRUMPERS WHO SIT ON THE JURY AS HAPPENED IN THE MANAFORT CASE WHERE ONE JUROR WAS A TRUMPER WHO SAIDED YOUS WITH A FOREIGN JUROR I WILL TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE EVIDENCE, EVEN THOUGH I SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP, MANAFORT WAS GUILTY, THE EVIDENCE WAS CLEAR.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN HERE TOO.

IS THAT THE EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW, AND THERE WOULD BE A CONVICTION.

>> ONE PIECE OF ADVICE BEFORE YOU GO, I WOULD SWITCH TO SPELLING BEE, A FRIENDLY PIECE OF ADVICE.

>> I DO SPELLING BEE TOO.

>> I BET YOU DO, JILL THANKS SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, MY PLEASURE.

BYE BYE.

TODAY'S HEARING WAS THE LAST ONE THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE WILL HOLD THIS MONTH.

THE NEXT ONE WILL TAKE PLACE AFTER CONGRESS RETURNS FROM A RECESS IN MID-JULY.

WHEN THEY DO, WE'LL CONTINUE TO BRING YOU THE HEARINGS IN FULL ON THE RADIO, ONLINE AND ON GBH'S THE WORLD CHANNEL, ALONG WITH OUR RECAPS AND ANALYSIS RIGHT HERE ON GREATER BOSTON.

BUT WHILE THE MOST ATTENTION IS GOING TO THE ATTEMPTED COUP THAT, AS THE SELECT COMMITTEE IS LAYING OUT, WAS DRIVEN BY DONALD TRUMP, THAT WAS FAR FROM HIS FIRST LEGAL TRANSGRESSION WHILE IN OFFICE.

AND THAT'S WHY TWO TOP LAWYERS FROM THE OBAMA AND BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS TEAMED UP LONG BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION TO OFFER MORE THAN 50 PROPOSALS THAT WOULD ADDRESS ISSUES OF PRESIDENTIAL VIOLATIONS OF NORMS AND LAWS, AS SEEN IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND MANY OTHERS PRIOR.

THEY ADDRESS ISSUES FROM FOREIGN INFLUENCE TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLITICIZATION, FROM WAR POWERS TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND MORE, AND AGREE ON VIRTUALLY ALL, BUT ONE.

IT'S ALL LAID OUT IN THE BOOK: "AFTER TRUMP: RECONSTRUCTING THE PRESIDENCY."

THE AUTHORS JOINED ME ONE WEEK BEFORE ELECTION DAY.

FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL TO BARACK OBAMA, BOB BAUER AND JACK GOLDSMITH, BOB IS NOW PROFESSOR AND DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR AND RESIDENTS AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW, CODIRECTOR OF THE LEGISLATESSIVE AND REGULATORY PROCESS CLINIC.

JACK IS A PROFESSOR AT HAR VARD LAW, AND SENIOR FELLOW AT THE HOOVER INSTITUTION, CONGRATULATIONS ON THE BOOK AND THANKS FOR JOINING ME.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>> SO AS I SAID DOZENS OF IMPORTANT REFORMS, I WISH COULD YOU DO ONE OF THOSE FACE CLOSING THINGS JUST UP OR DOWN BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT IS NOT WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE.

I AM GOING TO PICK A COUPLE IF I MAY OF CURRENTLY HOT ISSUES THAT AMERICANS ARE THINKING ABOUT AND SEE WHAT YOU SUGGESTED BE DONE TO ADDRESS THEM.

FIRST AND I'M ASSUMING THIS IS YOURS, JACK, BECAUSE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, TRUMP HAS DEMANDED IT IS ATTORNEY GENERAL INDICT HIS POLITICAL ENKNEE, DO-- ENEMY, YOU HAVE A CHAPTER ON JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INDEPENDENCE, WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT THAT?

>> SO THAT SAY HARD ONE, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT IS IN CHARGE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND IF HE HAS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT WANTS TO CARRY OUT HIS WISH, THAT IS DIFFICULT TO DO WE BASICALLY PROPOSE, FIRST LET ME SAY WE PROPOSE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS TO GET AT THE INDEPENDENCE PROBLEM AND ON THAT ONE IN PARTICULAR, WE PROPOSE SIMPLY TO CLARIFY THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT PEOPLE WHO WORK THERE ARE SUBJECT TO THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE STATUES, SOMETHING NOT WELL-KNOWN AND ALSO TO CLARIFY THAT SOMETHING THAT IS ALSO NOT WELL-KNOWN THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS A STRONG NORM AGAINST POLITICIZATION BUT THE REFORMS REALLY GO BEYOND THAT.

WE ALSO, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT REFORM TO GET AT THAT PROBLEM IS TO MAKE CLURE THAT CONGRESS HAS TO PASS A LAW THAT THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF CAN BE SUBJECT TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

CRIMINAL OBJECTION-- OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, IT WAS NOT CLEAR NOW, A POINT OF CONVENTION-- CONTENTION IN THE MUELLER REPORT, THAT IS PROBABLY THE SINGLE MOST QUENGSAL REFORM THAT WOULD PUT A CHECK ON THAT.

BOB CAN I MOVE TO ANOTHER ONE, THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE TAX RETURNS WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN AN OF THE DISCUSSED TOPIC BROUGHT NEWSPAPER BOTH DEBATES, WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT THAT.

>> CONGRESS CAN CERTAINLY ENACT A STATUTE COMPELLING PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES, NOMINEES OF MAJOR PARTIES OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES WHO ARE ON THE BALLOTS OF ENOUGH STATES WHEN 270 ELECTORAL BOAT VOTES BE ELECTED TO THE PRESIDENCY COULD REQUIRE THAT TYPE OF CANDIDATE TO PRODUCE THEIR TAX RETURN.

AND THE NOM HAVING FAILED UNDER TRUMP IS THE FEAR THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO DO THAT.

WHAT WAS ONCE A NORM OF VOLUNTARY TAX DISCLOSURE AND CONVERT IT INTO A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.

I WOULD ALSO JUST ADD QUICKLY THAT THAT IS ONE OF THE NUMBER OF REFORMS THAT ARE NEEDED TO ADDRESS FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

WE'VE ALSO SEEN IN THIS ADMINISTRATION THE PRESIDENT WHO OSTENSIBLY WANTS TO RUN THE COUNTRY AND BE INVOLVED IN RUNNING AND PROMOTING A BUSINESS.

THIS REVEALS SOME REALLY SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN OUR REGULATION OF PRESIDENTIAL FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

AND WE PROPOSE REFORMS TO CLOSE THAT GAP.

>> WHO WANTS TO TAKE A THIRD ONE THAT I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, NAMELY FOLLOWING IN THE WAKE OF PARDONS OR COME OUTATIONS THAT APPEAR TO MOST PEOPLE TO HAVE BEEN POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, THAT THE PRESIDENT MAY DECIDE IF HE LOSES ON NOVEMBER 3rd OR THEREAFTER THAT HE PARDONED HIMSELF.

MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE CONSTITUTION GIVES VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT WITH NO RESTRICTIONS TO PARDON.

BUT YOU GUYS SEEM TO THINK THAT CONGRESS COULD PUT SOME CONSTRAINTS ON THAT.

WHO WANTS TO TAKE THAT ONE?

>> I WILL TAKE THAT ONE.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU JACK.

>> I WAS WORRIED NO ONE WAS GOING TO TAKE THAT ONE BUT GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU, PROFESSOR.

SO YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THAT WHAT YOU ARE MOSTLY RIGHT THAT THE PARDON POWERS AMONG THE BROADEST IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE MOST DIFFICULT TO REGULATED AND SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS AN ABSOLUTE BUT THAT'S NOT TRUE.

AND IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR THAT CONGRESS COULD PASS A LAW THAT WOULD NOT STOP A PRESIDENT FROM GIVING A PARDON IN E CHANGE FOR A BRIBE OR TO OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.

HE CAN'T STOP THE PRESIDENT FROM DOING THAT.

BUT YOU CAN CRIMINALIZE THAT ACT.

AND CRIMINALIZE THAT SEPARATE ACT AND MAKE IT A CRIME EITHER TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE OR TAKE A BRIBE.

AND A LOT OF THE, THERE IS ALOT OF KERP ABOUT WHAT TRUMP HAS DONE AND MIGHT DO IN THE INTERIM IF HE LOSES THE ELECTION.

BUT THAT IS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.

AND THE OTHER ONE OF COURSE IS THE SELF-PARDONING.

THAT ONE IS COMPLETELY UNCLEAR.

DOLLARS THERE IS JUST NO GUIDANCE IN COURT CASES, THERE IS A TAKE AWAY, WE THINK CONGRESS CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT BUT IT CAN'T HAVE DECIDE THE ISSUE.

>> YOU KNOW, BOB WHEN I'M READING THIS BOOK AND I BECAME BORDERLINE OBSESSED WITH THESE REFORMS BY THE WAY TO THE POINT OF ALMOST AN ILLNESS, I HAVE TO BE CANDIDATE-- CANDID BUT AS I'M READING THEM, FIRST OF ALL I SHOULD MAKE CLEAR TO PEOPLE THIS IS NOT SOME ANTI-TRUMP SCREED, YOU GO OUT OF YOUR WAY TO MAKE CLEAR THAT PRIOR PRESIDENTS OFTEN WERE DOING SOME OF THE SAME THINGS THAT HE HAS DONE.

YOU GIVE THE HISTORY.

BUT I THINK YOU WOULD BOTH AGREE THAT IT IS TRUMP INSPIRED.

THAT HE SORT OF ELEVATED IT TO A LEVEL THAT HASN'T BEEN GONE BEFORE.

SO TO YOU, THE CONCERN I HAD IS YOU CRAFT REFORMS BASED ON THE FORMS AND LAW ABUSING FOR LACK OF A BETTER EXPRESSION OF THIS PRESIDENT.

BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY WOULD ONLY BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST A PRESIDENT WHO DIDN'T ACT LIKE DONALD TRUMP.

THAT IF YOU ARE DONALD TRUMP AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT BREAKING LAWS, YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT BREAKING NORMS, YOU DON'T WORRY ABOUT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT BECAUSE YOU JUST DON'T COMPLY WITH IT, HOW DOES THIS FIX A TRUMP 2.0?

>> WHERE THERE IS NOT A LAW AND COULD BE A LAW BY REFORM, THAT IT DOES OPERATE-- IS IT TRUE THAT TRUMP HAS REPEATEDLY MANIFESTED, THERE ARE MANY THAT THE EXISTENCE OF LAWS HAVE IN FACT CONSTRAINED HIM.

AND THERE ARE FORMS, IN FACT, EVEN THOUGH HE HAS RESISTED THEM MIGHTILY THAT CONSTRAINT-- CONSTRAINS HIM, SO WE BELIEVE THAT WHERE THE LAW CAN BE STRENGTHENED, LOOPHOLES CAN BE PLUGGED, FRESH CONSTRAINTS CAN BE CRAFTED AND NORMS CAN BE INVIGORATED, THE NEXT ONE WHO COME AS LONG WILL AT LEAST HAVE FEWER WEAKNESSES TO EXPLOIT, FEWER FISHURES TO EXPLOIT IN THE OVERALL STRUCTURE AGAINST CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

>> Braude: ONLY A MINUTE LEFT, CAN I BRING UP A NORM THAT IS BEING VIOLATED THAT IS NOT IN YOUR BOOK, BOB STARTING WITH YOU, HOW DO WE ENSURE GOING FORWARD THAT THE SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS DO NOT PROCEED ONCE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ARE ALREADY VOTING?

- >> THERE IS REALLY ACTUALLY NO WAY TO DO IT.

THE ONLY WAY TO AVERT THIS KIND OF SORT OF IF YOU WILL CONSTITUTIONAL BLOOD SHED OVER SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS IS TO POTENTIALLY LOOK LIKE A REFORM LIKE TERM LIMITING, SUPREME COURT JUSTICES SO THAT EVERY PRESIDENT IS ABLE TO APPOINT THEM.

>> HOW ABOUT YOU.

>> YAIRKS MI AFRAID I DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE SAY NORM BEING VIOLATED HERE IT IS CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL, CLEARLY CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE.

TO MAKE THE REFORM YOU WANT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND IT IS NOT CLEAR WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

I AGREE WITH BOB THAT THERE IS CLEARLY SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS IT CLEARLY NEEDS TO BE STUIED AND REFORMED IN SOME SENSE BECAUSE THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS HAS JUST GOTTEN TO BE VERY, VERY DESTRUCTIVE FOR THE COURTS AND THE REST OF THE NATION BUT I DON'T THINK THERE IS AN EASIER FIX FOR IT.

>> Braude: MAYBE WILL YOU LET ME WRITE THAT CHAPTER IN YOUR NEXT BOOK, JACK AND BOB.

THE BOOK IS TERRIFIC, I HOPE EVERYBODY READS IT, A PLEASURE TO SEE YOU BOTH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCHNESS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> Braude: THE BOOK AGAIN IS "AFTER TRUMP: RECONSTRUCTING THE PRESIDENCY."

ONE OTHER THING WE DISCUSSED DURING THAT INTERVIEW, ON WHICH BAUER AND GODSMITH DISAGREED, WAS WHETHER A PRESIDENT SHOULD BE PROSECUTED WHILE IN OFFICE.

BAUER WAS IN FAVOR, BUT AT LEAST BEFORE THE INSURRECTION, GOLDSMITH WASN'T SO SURE.

>> I THINK WE DO HAVE TO HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY SO THAT THE PRESIDENT ISN'T VIEWED AS BEING ABOVE THE LAW.

I ALSO WORRY ABOUT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NORM THAT'S OVERREAD TO IMMUNIZE A PRESIDENT IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL HEALING OR AVOIDING POLITICAL CONFLICT JACK GOLDSMITH: I THINK IT WOULD MAINTAIN THE CIRCUS THAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN WASHINGTON AND MAKE IT HARD FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO KIND OF MOVE FORWARD IN THE APPEARANCE OF INDEPENDENCE AND IMPARTIALITY AND I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE BAD FOR THE COUNTRY ON BALANCE.

>> Braude: BUT GIVEN WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE, JACK GOLDSMITH'S STANCE HAS GOTTEN EVEN MORE NUANCED.

IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" THIS WEEK, HE LAID OUT THE DEEPLY COMPLICATED, AND IN SOME RESPECTS EXISTENTIAL QUESTIONS ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND WILL HAVE TO WEIGH AS HE DECIDES WHETHER TO CHARGE TRUMP WITH A CRIME.

HE WRITES: "A FAILURE TO INDICT MR. TRUMP IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD IMPLY THAT A PRESIDENT... IS LITERALLY ABOVE THE LAW, IN DEFIANCE OF THE VERY NOTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT."

BUT, HE ADDS: "...THE PROSECUTION WOULD FURTHER INFLAME OUR ALREADY BLAZING PARTISAN ACRIMONY, CONSUME THE REST OF MR. BIDEN'S TERM, EMBOLDEN AND POSSIBLY POLITICALLY ENHANCE MR. TRUMP AND THREATEN TO SET OFF TIT-FOR-TAT RECRIMINATIONS ACROSS PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATIONS."

GOLDSMITH PAINTS THE PICTURE OF A NO-WIN SITUATION IN WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MUST CHOOSE THE PATH OF LEAST DAMAGE TO AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, A DECISION I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE.

IN THE MEANTIME, READ THE BOOK AND JACK'S OP-ED IN FULL.

THAT'S IT FOR TONIGHT.

WE'LL BE